Re: [boost] [Fit]Â formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core

Subject: Re: [boost] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 21:21:40

Hi,

I want to start a new sub-thread about some of the concerns of Steven 
Watanabe about whether some of the contents of this library fits better 
in Boost.Config. In particular the file boost/fit/returns.hpp.

Others could be considered also as function.hpp, lambda.hpp and 
lift.hpp, as the macros are there to workaround some missing language 
features, but those are much more specialized (Boost.Core?)

John M., Peter D. what do you think?
Steven, were you thinking on other parts of the library?

Paul, it is normal that you added those utilities in your library, as 
Boost doesn't provides them, however them can be included as sub-modules 
of other libraries.

Best,
Vicente

returns
doc     http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/returns/index.html
file https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/blob/boost/include/boost/fit/returns.hpp

function
doc http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/function/index.html
file 
https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/blob/boost/include/boost/fit/function.hpp

lambda
doc http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/lambda/index.html
file https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/blob/boost/include/boost/fit/lambda.hpp

lift
http://pfultz2.github.io/Fit/doc/html/lift/index.html
file https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/blob/boost/include/boost/fit/lift.hpp